-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/13/2014 9:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> Why does it matter? Linux doesn't pay attention to the >> partition type code anyhow. I've always just used 0x83. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118065#c5 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118065#c8 > > > I find this logic troubling. It's rather similar to the logic that > lead to parted using the pre-existing Microsoft basic data GUID > when making Linux partitions on GPT disks; out of a pool of just > under infinite alternative GUIDs. "Oh it doesn't really matter" on > Linux, but meanwhile on dual boot systems, Windows recognizes its > partitiontype GUID, but not the contents of the partition, and > actively invites the user to reformat it.
How is this at all related? Windows already ignores 0x83. > For example, 0x83 partition type, and mdadm metadata 1.0 on md > raid1 suggests that the partition can be mounted stand alone rather > than first assembling the raid. If something actually were to do > this, the array would become inconsistent and unrepairable without > rather knowledgable manual intervention. A partition with md > metadata is in fact not a Linux filesystem, so really we shouldn't > lie about what it is by using the wrong partition type code. Suggests? Lieing? To whom? Nobody pays attention to the type codes. Also if you really want a different type code for raid, there already is one: 0xFD. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTw+NOAAoJEI5FoCIzSKrw6vsH/Rxuwlqtw7Ef7KmBNMqWeZvz 6jGf4hxDUy176O6GRFMDlroJY4Gk5apSZdzyTGcIhprMYVe12DVZA5/rJOz1GmP7 /ArqaJoDtyRXP0/yuDqXxlwHoA0u8HaUGtXv2D1SEqw+dbi3Rb1f+D8E/tZ/TcXG Y+Tcr9cyl0W2gvS9UrYrIgErscaUhJeGV7r1Njiv6GDmyExDm9zhtlafC+g9Z2ZZ XK7MV3y2mReSiZOnZejZ+3ZT0Doiv2tPDlGkG73L+rZ4fJdN1/FS4L22UDEIhZtS d36qKBPDWAuij9LR5Yz+1oK0c9f34cWn2mo8rDDZyU7USdiEA2eorevHwCaFHaI= =gn+C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
